- [04/18] US housing starts fell in March; still stronger than in 2016
- [04/04] Border wall contractors brace for hostile environment
- [04/13] Crematory suspended after worker took home 93 sets of ashes
- [04/04] US tells companies not to overlook qualified Americans
- [04/04] Border wall contractors brace for hostile environment
Injury & Tort Law
[04/21] General Refractories Co v. First State Insurance Co.
In a dispute involving the rightful allocation of asbestos-related losses under thirty-year-old excess insurance policies, and to decide which of two companies, a historical manufacturer of asbestos-containing products and its insurer, will bear costs associated with a staggering number of asbestos claims, the district court's judgment that the policy is ambiguous is reversed where the phrase 'arising out of' asbestos, when used in a Pennsylvania insurance exclusion, unambiguously requires 'but for' causation.
[04/21] Kwan v. SanMedica Int'l
In a suit alleging that defendants made claims concerning its product, SeroVital, that were unsubstantiated, the district court's ed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of plaintiff's second amended complaint is affirmed where: 1) pursuant to the holding in National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. v. King Bio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 107 Cal. App. 4th 1336, 1344 (Cal. App. 2003), the panel held that the district court did not err in concluding that neither the Unfair Competition Law nor the Consumer Legal Remedies Act provided plaintiff with a private cause of action to enforce the substantiation provisions of California's unfair competition and/or consumer protection laws; and 2) the district court did not err in concluding that the second amended complaint failed to allege facts that would support a finding that defendants' claims regarding its product, SerioVital, were actually false.
[04/20] In re Tronox Inc.
In an appeal of a district court order enforcing a permanent anti?suit injunction issued after a bankruptcy settlement, involving the toxic tort claims of than 4,300 individuals who allege significant injuries from the operation of a wood?treatment plant in Avoca, Pennsylvania between 1956 and 1996, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the claims are barred by the injunction because they are generalized 'derivative' claims that fall within the property of the bankruptcy estate.
[04/19] Camerano v. US
In a wrongful death action lawsuit arising out of a fall decedent suffered while on a 'respite/nursing stay' at a facility operated by defendant, a federal entity under the purview of the United States Public Health Service, the district court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed where the two-year limitations period established by Congress expired.
Labor & Employment Law
[04/21] NLRB v. Pier Sixty, LLC
In petition for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and an employer's cross?petition, the NLRB's decision is affirmed where: 1) employer has not shown the existence of an 'extraordinary circumstance' that requires us to waive the ordinary rule against considering arguments not presented to the Board as required by 29 U.S.C. section 160(e); and 2) employer violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) by discharging the employee since employee's conduct was not so 'opprobrious' as to lose the protection of the NLRA.
[04/21] Pan Am Railways, Inc. v. US Dep't of Labor
In a petition for review, in an underlying Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) whistleblower retaliation action, of an agency decision resulting in the statutory maximum award of punitive damages against a railroad, the petition is denied where substantial evidence supported the ALJ's rejection of the railroad's affirmative defense and the ALJ's decision to impose punitive damages.
[04/19] Featherstone v. S. Cal. Permanente Med. Group
In an action brought by a former employee against her employer, alleging defendant refused to rescind her resignation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Gov.Code section 12940 et seq., and public policy, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where: 1) defendant's refusal to allow plaintiff to rescind her resignation was not an adverse employment action under the FEHA.; and 2) plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant employees who accepted and promptly processed her resignation knew of her alleged temporary disability at the time they took those actions.
[04/18] Coventry Health Care of Mo., Inc. v. Nevils
In an insurance class action arising in the context of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (FEHBA) authorization of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to contract with private carriers for federal employees' health insurance, 5 U.S.C. section 8902(a) and (d), the Missouri Supreme Court's decision, preventing federal employee insurance carries from seeking subrogation and reimbursement if there is a conflicting state law, is reversed where, because contractual subrogation and reimbursement prescriptions plainly 'relate to . . . payments with respect to benefits,' section 8902(m)(1), they override state laws barring subrogation and reimbursement.
[03/29] Marin Community Services v. WCAB
In a writ proceeding seeking to set aside the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) holding that firefighter-petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the rebuttable presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1 that his cancer arose out of his employment, the WCAB's decision is affirmed where: 1) the WCAB's determination that petitioner was an employee of Marinwood was based on a reasonable interpretation of the relevant statutes; and 2) the WCAB's determination that the extension of the cancer presumption ran from the date petitioner last worked as a firefighter for any agency was based on a reasonable interpretation of the relevant statute.
[03/29] Ramirez v. WCAB
In a workers' compensation writ proceeding, seeking review of worker-petitioner's independent medical review on the ground the underlying utilization review was based on an incorrect standard, the order of the administrative law judge (ALJ) taking the matter off calendar is reversed and remanded for further proceedings where: 1) this is not a proper ground for appeal of a utilization review determination because it goes to the heart of the determination of medical necessity; 2) the independent medical reviewer is in the best position to determine whether the proper standard was used to evaluate the medical necessity of the requested treatment, and the statutory scheme requires the independent medical reviewer to use the proper standard in determining medical necessity; and 3) the Legislature's plenary power over the workers' compensation system precludes any separation of powers violation, and the process afforded workers under the system affords sufficient opportunity to present evidence and be heard.
[03/24] Co. of Riverside v. WCAB
In a workers' compensation case involving a sheriff, the findings by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board are affirmed over a County's challenge where: 1) plaintiff's the application for adjudication of claim was timely filed; and 2) Labor Code section 5500.5(a), did not bar liability on the County?s part.
[03/23] People v. Riddles
Conviction of workers' compensation insurance fraud in violation of Insurance Code section 11760(a) and restitution order are affirmed where: 1) a workers' compensation insurer may recover, as restitution under Penal Code section 1202.4, the premiums it would have earned in the absence of misrepresentations by an insurance applicant; and 2) the court did not err in imposing a fine.
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.